swansont

That’s what’s being looked at, AFAIK

You will notice that the mass cancels, since the speed of a falling object is independent of mass.

Given that you have weighed in on much more complicated physics problems, one might expect you could solve a physics 101 problem At the top of the travel the KE is zero and PE is mgH, where H is the top of the travel. The sum remains constant, so KE = mg(H-h) at all points (this assumes g is a constant) KE = p^2/2m so the momentum will be sqrt(2m^2g(H-h)) The details of the collision aren't given; this solution doesn't apply to the impact itself and assumes a point particle (again, details are not given)

But you claim "the linear-fresnel lenses will greatly improve efficiency." So which is it? Is the efficiency greatly improved, or does it not matter much? You need to explain why this is so. I will note that not of these claims are quantified, nor is any direct justification given for them. Just hand-waving.

pions are bosons (they are spin 0)

They are the same thing. It's not emergent, as such.

Also the Cherenkov radiation detectors as mentioned in your other thread. Ad, as with that thread, can you point to what you want to discuss here?

From what I've read, "emergent" indicates a behavior that is seen at some larger scale but is not seen at a smaller scale with the constituent entities. Gravity would not qualify. As far as we know, even a small mass exerts gravity, even if we ignore it.

It's not the quantity, it's the scope. Which is about prediction, and still includes making and using models, which is the salient point. As I said, this is a matter of how you use your model, rathe than being in a new category exclusive of making and testing models. If I suggested that I "limit(ed) (my) definition of Science to analysis and only to analysis of what is" that was not my intent.

Climate science is constructing models in order to see the behavior of nature under those conditions. I was taking your objection to men that there were things that did not include models and testing, not the scope of the models. Yes, science makes predictions of things that could happen under some conditions. I consider that to be part of modeling the universe. We even model behaviors that we have not yet observed, to see if we've missed something.

Do you have some examples of these efforts?

Perhaps it's more that entropy defies an easy distillation into a sound bite. To say that scientists don't understand it is true in the same sense that we still have more to discover, as with all science, but not so much in the sense that we have no understanding of it. Feynman had a good quote about this difficulty, when someone asked about magnets in an interview I really can’t do a good job, any job, of explaining magnetic force in terms of something else you’re more familiar with, because I don’t understand it in terms of anything else you’re more familiar with. IOW, there are some situations in physics where you need to learn some physics in order to develop an understanding of a concept.

! Moderator Note Because it's cheating, and also advertising is against our rules. But mainly because it's cheating. And so you get banned, because you do the bidding of cheaters.

It split when we started testing ideas and making more detailed predictions. You can test the notion that heavier things fall faster than lighter ones, but nobody bothered to see if Aristotle's philosophical idea held up for almost 2000 years until Galileo did it. Ditto for crystal spheres and orbits. We finally discarded that notion because elliptical orbits worked better (simpler model) and made more sense

iNow's quote and my reply were about science, not perception. And, as I said, there *is* more but it's mostly the details of how you go about building and testing your models.

But those are primarily details of how you go about building and testing your models.

How do you stack something that requires lenses to concentrate the light?

In the document I linked to they discuss this, on p 210. They use multiple methods, depending on which experiment you're looking at "These experiments have used four different techniques (target materials) and therefore have different energy thresholds—233 keV for the Gallium experiments (SAGE and GALLEX), 814 keV for the Chlorine experiment (Homestake) and a few MeV for the water Cherenkov experiments (Kamiokande and Super-Kamiokande; 5.5 MeV for the latest analy-sis threshold of Super-Kamiokande),and,we expect,5MeV for the heavy water Cherenkov experiment (SNO). It is an advantage that these experiments have dif-ferent energy thresholds and therefore have sensitivity to different regions of the solar neutrino spectrum." The chlorine and gallium experiments are the beta-decay technique I don't know enough about the Cherenkov experiments, but this Wikipedia page has some info. "the neutrino enters and then leaves the detector after having transferred some of its energy and momentum to a target particle. If the target particle is charged and sufficiently lightweight (e.g. an electron), it may be accelerated to a relativistic speed and consequently emit Cherenkov radiation" I don't know if a muon or tau neutrino would undergo this interaction with an electron. The entry suggest that they can, but you can't tell what kind of neutrino was involved. (this is beyond my schooling) The other interaction says "a high-energy neutrino transforms into its partner lepton (electron, muon, or tau).[7] However, if the neutrino does not have sufficient energy to create its heavier partner's mass, the charged current interaction is unavailable to it." So here we know there is not enough energy to do this, since the requirement is bigger than 100 MeV

But this is an example where clear rules are in place, and it's a problem. These are not transgender women, nor is there any suggestion that they have cheated. This is like setting a height limit in basketball. Or, as the article notes, like banning someone for having abnormally large hands in basketball, or better than 20/20 vision in baseball.

Or if it already has a defense against phased plasma attacks.

A phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range will do a nice job of making toast. Set it to 3, wide aperture, one-second burst on each side, from about 12 meters (to let the beam expand sufficiently). If you're a good shot.

The line that set this off is "This types of comments just indicate ignorance." and in the context of the exchange, the topic was already known, so it was not (or should not have been) ambiguous to those in the conversation. What was being discussed was based in science, so it's much less of an opinion and much more about what you can support. ———— But Phi is absolutely correct: being called ignorant is not a personal attack in the context of our rules if it refers to some issue being discussed. Disagreement is not, either. If you assert an opinion as if it were a fact (especially an uninformed opinion), or something contrary to facts, then one should expect pushback. "You cannot dictate to others" would be an example of pushback. It's not like only one person is not allowed to dictate to others. OTOH, "you lack integrity, honesty, decency and are too cowardly to enforce a rather simple rule. Now go f**k yourself" is a string of personal attacks. As I've written before, "This is a place to discuss science, not a self-esteem support group. Civility is required, but this does not extend to walking on eggshells to accommodate fragile egos."

Remember that the terminator did not kill that particular Sarah Connors.

To me, the fact that "smart" algorithms try and interest me in things I just bought is a pretty strong indication that the internet is not close to being self-aware. [Me] <buys toaster> [internet] Hey, I see you like toasters. Can I interest you in any of these twelve toasters? <sends terminator to me to try and sell me more toasters>

Yes, if one is going to say that science is trying to establish what reality is, you'd best define the term. I'm not, so that's best left to others.